Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: MrRiplEy[H] on November 13, 2007, 03:27:39 AM
-
But not in the shape and form you'd think:
United States Sucking up to RIAA demands. It seems that they're passing a law which will pull all federal funding from any university (AND students whether they committed p2p loading or not) that fails to comply with RIAA/MPAA demands on releasing p2p users information.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/bad-government/new-bill-would-deny-schools-funding-if-they-dont-comply-with-the-riaa-321541.php
This here, folks, is serious government level corruption when a private corporation is getting tailor made laws passed.
-
slow news day in the land of funny hats and frozen people?
-
Gee, and they wonder why no one wants to buy overpriced music.
It's because consumers know this is what a portion of their money is being used for.
-
Where's Pavel?
-
Oh boo hooo.
Sad how people get upset over being restricted from stealing, even more sad that relatively smart people can fool themselves into thinking its ok for reasons like "the music sucks, or they are ripping off the artist" as justification for said theft.
Music is not needed to live, you do not have a right to it for free. It not even important in the grand scheme of things, stop being a thief, and if you like it enough to download it pay for it, or if you dislike it enough you feel justified in steeling it, just give it up.
Theft of any kind is wrong.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Oh boo hooo.
Sad how people get upset over being restricted from stealing, even more sad that relatively smart people can fool themselves into thinking its ok for reasons like "the music sucks, or they are ripping off the artist" as justification for said theft.
Music is not needed to live, you do not have a right to it for free. It not even important in the grand scheme of things, stop being a thief, and if you like it enough to download it pay for it, or if you dislike it enough you feel justified in steeling it, just give it up.
Theft of any kind is wrong.
I didn't see anyone say anything about downloading not being theft... was I looking at the wrong thread.... nope just checked, no one posted a thing abaut that.
I believe the topic on hand was how RIAA is stong arming the gov't into strong arming colleges to answer their very questionable legal grounded lawsuits.
-
I bet it won't pass.
No need to worry :)
-
Originally posted by Tiger
I didn't see anyone say anything about downloading not being theft... was I looking at the wrong thread.... nope just checked, no one posted a thing abaut that.
I believe the topic on hand was how RIAA is stong arming the gov't into strong arming colleges to answer their very questionable legal grounded lawsuits.
Yes, and why exactly are they doing that? That's what I thought, you a theif as well?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
you a theif as well?
Nope... I very rarely listen to music on the radio. It's tuned into local sports talk/ESPN Radio. About the only time I hear music now days is on a TV commercial, during the cut-outs to commercials on sporting events, in movies, or at church. I don'thave a CD player in the car, it still has a cassette deck, and I havn't seen a cassette in nearly 12 years. I couldn't tell you who was on the charts, who is still makign music, who has retired. Hell I hadn't heard that Soulja Boy thing (I don't think it classifies as a song) until I went to a football game last month, and apparently it's been out forever.
Most music now days is crappy remakes of great music from decades ago, or unintelligible jibberish screamed into a microphone, or just sucks beyond description.
-
Originally posted by Tiger
Nope... I very rarely listen to music on the radio. It's tuned into local sports talk/ESPN Radio. About the only time I hear music now days is on a TV commercial, during the cut-outs to commercials on sporting events, in movies, or at church. I don'thave a CD player in the car, it still has a cassette deck, and I havn't seen a cassette in nearly 12 years. I couldn't tell you who was on the charts, who is still makign music, who has retired. Hell I hadn't heard that Soulja Boy thing (I don't think it classifies as a song) until I went to a football game last month, and apparently it's been out forever.
Most music now days is crappy remakes of great music from decades ago, or unintelligible jibberish screamed into a microphone, or just sucks beyond description.
I agree, thats why I do not buy any of it. Havn't bough an album in 5 years at least.
I don't steal it either.
-
That's because there haven't been many good albums to buy in the last 5 years GTO.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Oh boo hooo.
Sad how people get upset over being restricted from stealing, even more sad that relatively smart people can fool themselves into thinking its ok for reasons like "the music sucks, or they are ripping off the artist" as justification for said theft.
Music is not needed to live, you do not have a right to it for free. It not even important in the grand scheme of things, stop being a thief, and if you like it enough to download it pay for it, or if you dislike it enough you feel justified in steeling it, just give it up.
Theft of any kind is wrong.
Regardless if downloading music is legal or illegal. Don't you think it's a little much that a "special interest" group has the power to have "federal funds" pulled from colleges?
Do you not find that just a little bit too much power for a group whom caters to big business to have?
-
Originally posted by crockett
Regardless if downloading music is legal or illegal. Don't you think it's a little much that a "special interest" group has the power to have "federal funds" pulled from colleges?
Do you not find that just a little bit too much power for a group whom caters to big business to have?
Sure, I agree with that as well, but thats not why most of these guys are crying over it. We both know its because they fear losing their free music.
But yes I agree the feds passing laws like this for the RIAA is a bit much, they SHOULD just help them procecute the theives. ;)
-
At this rate I might as well move to China :)
-
LOL..
Instead of worrying about a law that 'might' be passed, you might want to focus a little closer to home.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7092413.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7092413.stm)
Both men received a hefty 3,000-euro (£2,100) fine. Their offence was to have published a cartoon last July making ribald fun of the heir to the Spanish throne, and of the government's scheme to encourage women to have more babies by giving mothers a special payment for each new birth.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Sure, I agree with that as well, but thats not why most of these guys are crying over it. We both know its because they fear losing their free music.
But yes I agree the feds passing laws like this for the RIAA is a bit much, they SHOULD just help them procecute the theives. ;)
Maybe they should start passing laws to go after big corporate thieves at the same rate they pass laws to go after average Joe nobodies. Now that would be something..
-
Originally posted by crockett
Maybe they should start passing laws to go after big corporate thieves at the same rate they pass laws to go after average Joe nobodies. Now that would be something..
It would indeed.
Those Corporate types have good lawyers though and the money to buy people.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Theft of any kind is wrong.
Does that include price fixing and other monopolistic and predatory tactics the music and movie industry engages in?
Piracy is working as a weapon for the consumer to fight for their rights and needs in the absense of fair market forces, R5 DVD sales have proven so.
-
I dl music on the net. If i like it ill buy the album on cd and if i dont i delete if from the pc. Who wants crappy music filling up the drives anyway?
Is it stealing? Yes, until i buy the album it is.
Do I care?
No.. I see it as listening to it on the radio before buying (or not). You never get to hear every song from an album on the radio anyway so I see dl it from the net as doing the artists job of promoting the music to me.
I buy about 5-10 cds a month and my vinyl collection stands at 988 LP/EPs and singles. I also have 1143 cd's
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Sure, I agree with that as well, but thats not why most of these guys are crying over it. We both know its because they fear losing their free music.
Well MrRiplEy[H] is in Finland so I don't think he is overly concerned about losing his free music, if indeed he does pirate music. He is a wee bit outside your jurisdiction. Your reasoning seems flawed.
-
Chinese bootlegs don't count Nils!;)
-
Originally posted by rpm
Chinese bootlegs don't count Nils!;)
:D
-
Originally posted by Tiger
Most music now days is crappy remakes of great music from decades ago, or unintelligible jibberish screamed into a microphone, or just sucks beyond description.
exactly right, and besides it aint worth the risk of being forced to watch an endless loop of ' who wants to be a superhero? ' in pergatory for a few thousand millennia. ;)
-
There are people making truly original and excellent music out there, but you won't hear them on MTV or mainstream radio; you have to really search hard for them. Pandora was an excellent tool to find new music until RIAA neutered them.
-
Originally posted by Viking
There are people making truly original and excellent music out there, but you won't hear them on MTV or mainstream radio; you have to really search hard for them. Pandora was an excellent tool to find new music until RIAA neutered them.
Exactly, it's like RIAA is doing it's best to make sure people will not discover any new artists through the internet.
-
Originally posted by soda72
LOL..
Instead of worrying about a law that 'might' be passed, you might want to focus a little closer to home.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7092413.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7092413.stm)
Hmm I fail to see how centuries old laws protecting the prestige of the royalty falls into the category of private corporations dictating federal laws.. :rolleyes:
The King _was_ the law not so long ago.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Oh boo hooo.
blah blah ...stealing...blah blah ...theft
What you should be crying about is your lack of understanding.
Downloading music, pirated or not is never stealing or theft. For it to be stealing or theft, you would have to take something from someone else, when you download music, you are copying something from someone else.
Since the copied file is protected by copyright laws, what you might be guilty of is copyright infringement. But never theft. And you are not stealing.
For you to be able to steal a song, you would have to break into the artists house, and physically remove the "song" (a sheet of lyrics and notes perhaps?) and make off with it.
-
The word stealing is used as a euphemism here, Hortland. It's a shorter, more salient word than 'copyright infringement', and being such, commands the attention of those most prone to such an act--teens.
On a practical level, however, I see little difference. Either way, you are robbing somebody of their due royalties. You aren't taking money out of their pocket, but, having taken their product for your own enjoyment, you are failing to put it into that pocket. Call it copyright infringement, call it breach of implied contract. It is something, no matter how you slice it. As a onetime aspiring novelist, I think that it should be the artist's choice how his or her material is spread. If payment is what the creator wants, for risk of less publicity, then payment is what he should get.
The biggest, most important difference to consider is that while stealing simply deprives a person of something, copyright infringement does give them some consideration for their work. An unlicensed user is still a user, and as such, has given that media yet another consumer. Even without the royalties, the media grows and expands its effect on society by touching another mind--which is what art was once ALL about, at least in the fairy tales... Reality is a bit more complex.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
A thief trying to justify being a thief...
Whatever theif.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Whatever theif.
No, see, for someone to steal something, you have to remove something from someone elses possession. Since you are not doing that, you are not stealing anything.
This is very basic stuff, think lawschool 101.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
No, see, for someone to steal something, you have to remove something from someone elses possession. Since you are not doing that, you are not stealing anything.
This is very basic stuff, think lawschool 101.
It still boils down to the same thing. Lawyer bull**** aside.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
The word stealing is used as a euphemism here, Hortland. It's a shorter, more salient word than 'copyright infringement', and being such, commands the attention of those most prone to such an act--teens.
[/b]
I understand why the music industry and the artists themselves want to paint the situation up as being a theft. It is however wrong, and I dont think anyone should be throwing around legal concepts or words that mean something completely different. Just as I dont call it a rape when someone has consensual sex with a prostitute.
On a practical level, however, I see little difference. Either way, you are robbing somebody of their due royalties. You aren't taking money out of their pocket, but, having taken their product for your own enjoyment, you are failing to put it into that pocket. Call it copyright infringement, call it breach of implied contract. It is something, no matter how you slice it. As a onetime aspiring novelist, I think that it should be the artist's choice how his or her material is spread. If payment is what the creator wants, for risk of less publicity, then payment is what he should get.
[/b]
For your analogy to work however, you would have to show that the person downloading a song would buy a copy of that song if he didnt download it. That is a very tall order for you to show.
You also have to take into consideration that it is legal to make a recording of the song if it is performed on the radio. So it is legal for me to have a recording of the song without ever having paid for it in the first place. With that in mind, one can ask the question what the difference would be between recording the song from the radio, or downloading it from the internet. Both are "free" recordings of the song.
You also need to separate the person making the song avaliable for download, and the person downloading the song. You might have a bigger case against one of these two.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
It still boils down to the same thing. Lawyer bull**** aside.
Look, if you dont know what the legal terms mean, then maybe you shouldnt throw them around like you do? It just makes you look silly.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
No, see, for someone to steal something, you have to remove something from someone elses possession. Since you are not doing that, you are not stealing anything.
This is very basic stuff, think lawschool 101.
Like I said in response to your post above, hortland, it's a euphemism. 'Steal' and 'thief' ring much louder in the ears of teenagers than does 'copyright infringement'... Or, as the case is with pirated media, 'unlicensed use'.
And even in lawschool they teach you to first cut through all the bull****, get the root of the injustice, and only then start to contrast the issues and apply all the mumbo jumbo. At least that's the way I experienced it.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Like I said in response to your post above, hortland, it's a euphemism. 'Steal' and 'thief' ring much louder in the ears of teenagers than does 'copyright infringement'... Or, as the case is with pirated media, 'unlicensed use'.
[/b]
Which is why they use it. It is still wrong though, and just as I dont think you should call sex with a prostitute "rape" just to try to score a political/emotional point, I dont think you should call downloading music "theft".
And even in lawschool they teach you to first cut through all the bull****, get the root of the injustice, and only then start to contrast the issues and apply all the mumbo jumbo. At least that's the way I experienced it.
The legal profession is 95% about being good at bull****ting. you are never allowed to make **** up though, nor are you allowed to be wrong.
"Your honor, I know this is not stealing, but I think this is just as bad as stealing and I want to score an emotional point with the jury"...doesnt really work in a court.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Look, if you dont know what the legal terms mean, then maybe you shouldnt throw them around like you do? It just makes you look silly.
Maybe you should understand I have no respect for you in the least and do not care at all what you think or say.
Your good for a laugh though.
-
Hortland,
All true, and especially about the legal industry being 95% about bull****... Part of the reason I've grown to loathe it.
However, in lawschool at least, they do try to distill certain issues down to acceptable reason and logic. Things need to make intuitive sense to the young, moldable mind before that mind can be taught to take that intuitive sense and effectively skew it all to hell.
This issue is a sticky one for me. Like I said earlier though, I approach it not from the standpoint of a lawyer, but from that of an artist. If an artist just wants to be heard, and his message spread to as many minds as possible, all this unlicensed use talk becomes moot. If their primary goal is to get paid, then they should be able to risk loosing exposure in favor of the money.
Just my thoughts.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Hortland,
All true, and especially about the legal industry being 95% about bull****... Part of the reason I've grown to loathe it.
However, in lawschool at least, they do try to distill certain issues down to acceptable reason and logic. Things need to make intuitive sense to the young, moldable mind before that mind can be taught to take that intuitive sense and effectively skew it all to hell.
This issue is a sticky one for me. Like I said earlier though, I approach it not from the standpoint of a lawyer, but from that of an artist. If an artist just wants to be heard, and his message spread to as many minds as possible, all this unlicensed use talk becomes moot. If their primary goal is to get paid, then they should be able to risk loosing exposure in favor of the money.
Just my thoughts.
What are your thoughts on the fact that it is legal to make a recording of a song on the radio and keep that recording? we can argue the principles if you like. What is the principal difference between making such a recording and downloading a song?
We can make it even more to poignant; it is now possible to stream radio broadcasts from most stations, meaning that you can download them and listen to them whenever you want. It is also legal to keep that recording. These streaming radio-broadcasts also include music. What is the difference between downloading such a broadcast and keeping it and downloading a song?
-
It's just a loophole. To be fair, you shouldn't be able to do that. I personaly don't like the idea, but it's more defendable than taking for free what shouldn't be.
-
Originally posted by moot
It's just a loophole. To be fair, you shouldn't be able to do that. I personaly don't like the idea, but it's more defendable than taking for free what shouldn't be.
A loophole?!?!?!?!?!? In 1980 you could slap a casette tape in your stereo, tune to the local top 40 station, press record and ta-da, a legal copy of music.
I Think it has something to do with the whole 'public airwaves' thing with radio and TV.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
What are your thoughts on the fact that it is legal to make a recording of a song on the radio and keep that recording? we can argue the principles if you like. What is the principal difference between making such a recording and downloading a song?
We can make it even more to poignant; it is now possible to stream radio broadcasts from most stations, meaning that you can download them and listen to them whenever you want. It is also legal to keep that recording. These streaming radio-broadcasts also include music. What is the difference between downloading such a broadcast and keeping it and downloading a song?
My thoughts on this would have to concur with what Moot just said. I think it's BS. Legality is less and less often an indicator of morality, or whatever word you choose to contrast between right and wrong. To me it seems wrong. And while slapping a cassette into a radio and recording it may be legal, copying and distributing may well be another matter.
I do not see any significant difference (other than perhaps the potential degradation of sound from having been transmitted over the radio as opposed to the cable) between recording a song off the air or downloading it. To the artist, the end result is the same... He will not get paid for that copy of the song.
Now, on these boards, months ago, there was a person I recall who said that it should not matter. If something is easy to reproduce--as is a written document or a sound or video clip, it should not be subject to any penalty. I believe that's a load of crap too. Easy to reproduce says nothing of how easy, or hard, it was to create. I suppose that's why we have intellectual property rights in addition to personal and real property rights, and I doubt that the author of the aforementioned post has ever put time and sweat into the creation of anything original.
But going back to my previous point, there is a benefit to the artist, one way or another. More copies circulated, whether paid for or not, still help that artist. The artist gains fame, commands higher ticket sales... Their career benefits. They just don't see an immediate return. I do think that this should be up to the artist, however. The artist has needs as a human too. To pay the bills, to feed the kids. Those that can afford private jets are far outnumbered by those who are just trying to get a handhold in the industry. Relegating their music to free circulation too early in their career will not build reputation so much as destroy the will and means to continue to produce art.
I think that those policies that you listed above reflect the modern trend of favoring consumer rights over artist's rights. Whether this is good or bad I cannot say. I just with it were a bit more consistent with some sort of underlying goal, as opposed to the usual bureaucratic tripe.
-
If it weren't for piracy there'd be no itunes store, no online music sales, music and movies prices would never come down.
-
I paid $10 to see American Gangster on Sunday. If movies are becoming cheaper, I sure haven't noticed. And if they don't become cheaper, I won't care much either. They are as expensive as people are willing pay. If demand goes down because of price, the prices will fall.
As for the other things you mentioned, I would lose a wink of sleep if it never existed. I'd rather artists retain their ability to earn rather than guarantee consumers free or almost free stuff.
Of course other methods of collecting revenue can be expanded--such as selling ring tones, but artists should be concerned with making art, not coming up with new and creative ways to pay the bills. Since only a small minority of artists grow rich from their work, I'd personally not want to play a role in making it any more difficult for them to continue.
Or are you trying to say that Piracy somehow opens new avenues for creators to earn, depriving only the record companies of their inflated profits?
-
Hortlund, the difference between recording a radio broadcast and downloading music is this: The radio station have to pay royalties to the proprietor of the music. How much royalty they pay is partially based on the number of listeners the radio station got. So in effect the radio station pays for your recording/pod cast of the music. However when you download music nobody pays the proprietor a dime. Btw. this is what neutered Pandora; they simply couldn't afford to pay the royalties for a world audience, so now the service is limited to North America.
Other than that I agree with what you say.
-
Vulcan, two wrongs don't make a right.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
What are your thoughts on the fact that it is legal to make a recording of a song on the radio and keep that recording? we can argue the principles if you like. What is the principal difference between making such a recording and downloading a song?
We can make it even more to poignant; it is now possible to stream radio broadcasts from most stations, meaning that you can download them and listen to them whenever you want. It is also legal to keep that recording. These streaming radio-broadcasts also include music. What is the difference between downloading such a broadcast and keeping it and downloading a song?
Hortlund, you are talking about downloading music from Internet what is legal everywhere. If you can find free music somewhere in the Internet and download that music there is no law in any country which could prohibit you to do that. But they are talking about p2p network. It is something else. You voluntarily and knowngily participate in exchange of stuff which you have reason to believe have been stolen. It's another enactment.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
No, see, for someone to steal something, you have to remove something from someone elses possession. Since you are not doing that, you are not stealing anything.
This is very basic stuff, think lawschool 101.
I would think you need to start with Basic Word Comprehension 101.
Stealing: 2. To appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
Appropriate: 4. To take to or for oneself; take possession of.
Hortlund, downloading music illegally is theft no matter how you choose to sugar coat it.